From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cactus.org!wixer!sparky Fri Oct 30 15:17:31 EST 1992
Article 7388 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cactus.org!wixer!sparky
>From: sparky@wixer.cactus.org (Timothy Sheridan)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (quantum consciousness)
Message-ID: <1992Oct25.072235.1137@wixer.cactus.org>
Organization: Real/Time Communications
References: <1992Oct23.171726.588@cine88.cineca.it> <tim.719968383@giaeb>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 92 07:22:35 GMT
Lines: 89

In article <tim.719968383@giaeb> tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) write
s:
>avl0@cine88.cineca.it writes:
>
>>In article <tim.719734846@giaeb> tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) sai
d:
>>>
>>>Why is so much discussion centred around whether something (computer, robot,

>>>alien) "has" consciousness ?  This implies something either has consciousnes
s
>>>or not, and there is no intermediate state.  This is against almost all
>>>biological principles (and other principles too, for that matter - would you

>>>contend that a chair had 100% "chair-ness" all the time ?).
>
>>You miss the point. In short consciousness could be "knowing to be something"

>>not just "to be something". Does the chair know its chair-ness?
>>Moreover, there's not chair-ness in the wood, you have to add an order in you
r
>>wooden mass to obtain the chair with its chair-ness.
>>I feel there's something concerning the goal in the thing-ness of a thing.
>
>>You can add an infinity of elements scoring 0 in consciousness (of what?: of
them
>>selves or of whole they constitute?), asserting that the whole has consciousn
ess
>>is *at least* as irrational as admit that consciousness has no intermediate s
tate.
>>Otherwise you must postulate a minimum of consciousness in every
>>atom, electron and so on. Well: how do you mesured this consciousness?
>>How much consciousness has my leg or one of my neurons? (Again, of what?)
>>Is my corpse conscious? How much?
>>And the situation does not change assigning consciousness to interactions.
>>Really it's an "ad hoc" postulate, no more credible than a boojum.
>
>>Biology looks for biological or biochemical phenomena, it can't find anything
 like
>>consciousness as Physics can't assert a thermostat WONT (at a level low as yo
u like)
>>to stop heating a room.
>
>Well, I completely disagree (of course, I could be "missing the point" again).

>If a Ferrari is fast, are you saying that you can add up the sum of the parts
>of the Ferrari (perhaps 2 kph for the steering wheel, etc) to come up with the

>speed of the whole car ?
>
>This is clearly nonsense.  The speed only arises out of the assembling of all
>of the parts together - the individual parts have no speed whatsoever, just as

>an individual neuron has no consciousness.  It is ridiculous to think you can
>apply terms relating to high-level concepts to their individual parts.    You
>just can't.
>
>Tim
>
>--
>Tim S Roberts
>School of Applied Science                 tel:     051-226467
>Monash University (Gippsland)             fax:     051-221348
>Switchback Road
>Churchill                                 email:   tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au
>Victoria 3842
>Australia


Actualy one can look at scaler properties of anything and so say there is a
certon amount of X in Y but I also think that the meaning of consciousness is
lost in the scaler form.

Concider the Sheridan-vector for consciousness. It consistes of the raw size
and the structural (or semantic) complexity.

Each atom in the Ferrari must function slightly diferently in its ferrariness
and so the steering wheel does have a given quantity of F-ness but also has a
unique systematic F-ness.  These would be expressed in a vector quantity.

Some of the properties of the parts of a Ferrari will apply to all its
physical parts and others will representindividual properties.  Perhaps the
motor oil will lack "swankness" or the tires would lack "sliperyness".
But each part will have mass/energy.

It is not the raw mass energy but the synergistic aglomeration of
interrelations that is thus the thing that we call a ferrari /s

Tim.


